5 ms·

That article puts nuclear in a "list of technologies that failed to make the grade". So I question everything else in the article. I agree that nuclear is unde

That article puts nuclear in a "list of technologies that failed to make the grade". So I question everything else in the article. I agree that nuclear is underutilized, but putting it on the same list as an electric bike that flopped is.... I don't even have words

helsinkiandrew 3y ago
Whatever your feelings about nuclear power, you can't really argue with the reason they think it has "failed to make the grade": > “Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter” – Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1954.
- bdjsiqoocwk 3y ago
  Disagree. The comment is on price. Price is driven by a huge number of factors. It's not as simple as "if nuclear is successful, price is low otherwise it's high". One of those reasons is that when someone is more available you consume more, making price sticky. Also, consider where that comment comes from. It comes from a person who benefits from arguing that nuclear has magical economic powers. So you're saying that it's ok to say "nuclear failed because it didn't live up to ridiculous hype?". No, nonsense. Nuclear has been a huge success.
  - toss1 3y ago
    The price comment was not about "price is low"; it was about it becoming SO plentiful that the overhead in metering the cost would exceed the revenue and it could be just an on/off subscription This HAS happened with telecom services, where long-distance calls used to even be sometimes only one town over, and were charged by the minute. Toll-free (800)- numbers were a big deal. Now, the network is so successful and calls so numerous that it is literally too cheap to meter - you either subscribe or you don't. Per-call metering is only the case in some international calls. Nuclear electric power could have become this ubiquitous and successful, where the overhead of per-kilo-Watt metering outweighed the revenues. It would have merely had to scale up several more orders of magnitude. THIS was the prediction. Obviously, although nuclear did have some success this did not happen. The costs of commissioning, building, and decommissioning individual plants were just too high. We cannot conflate the actual modest success, producing barely 20% of power in the US in 1995[0], with the prediction of nuclear succeeding like telecomm. It did not happen. I think it could yet happen with some of the new small (neighborhood-scale), self-contained, inherently safe designs. But that is another prediction. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273208/nuclear-share-of-electricity-generation-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273208/nuclear-share-of-...
    - bdjsiqoocwk 3y ago
      I guess we differ in that you call generating 20% of the energy in the USA "not a success" lol
      - toss1 3y ago
        Yikes. I specifically said it was a success. But after 2/3 of a century, nuclear has clearly failed to attain the level of success of other technologies, and it's success has been capped. Moreover, nuclear is now on a clear and accelerating decline. The peak was 1995, producing 20.1% of US power, and it's now fallen from 19.7% to 18.2% in the last two years. I wish nuclear had enjoyed more success; it still may with new smaller-scale and inherently safe technologies. But the current cost profile and construction profile is so far out of line with the continually-rapidly-declining-costs of competing solar and wind technologies, that current nuclear is only falling further behind. To build a nuclear plant vs solar or wind requires far more capital, has a far longer permitting process and construction process before a return on capital can even begin, and a far more costly end-of-life phase (notice we're not even mentioning the usual highlights of nuclear waste disposal, containment, and nuclear material proliferation). Nuclear has simply become an unmanageable option. So, considering that it's success was limited, and is now in decline with no end in sight, how is it unfair to characterize it as "failing to make the grade"?
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  The United States has failed at nuclear power. It's much more successful elsewhere.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    Where is nuclear energy too cheap to meter?
    - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
      Measuring success this way is nonsensical. Is there anything that is too cheap to meter? Are other forms of energy also unsuccessful until they produce energy too cheap too meter? This isn't serious criteria. The argument is that this is a silly framing with which to judge success. I agree! I for one am extremely content consuming energy, more than half of which is nuclear, followed by hydro. It is very successful.
      - SiempreViernes 3y ago
        Measuring success by whether the proponents delivers on their promises seems entirely fair.
        alephknoll 3y ago
        By that criteria, everything is a failure. After all, it's the job of the proponent to oversell you on things.
        SiempreViernes 3y ago
        What sort of life experiences have made you come to this conclusion? Has nobody ever told you "come on, it'll be fun" and proven to be right by subsequent events?

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

Whatever your feelings about nuclear power, you can't really argue with the reason they think it has "failed to make the grade": > “Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter” – Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1954.

bdjsiqoocwk 3y ago
Disagree. The comment is on price. Price is driven by a huge number of factors. It's not as simple as "if nuclear is successful, price is low otherwise it's high". One of those reasons is that when someone is more available you consume more, making price sticky. Also, consider where that comment comes from. It comes from a person who benefits from arguing that nuclear has magical economic powers. So you're saying that it's ok to say "nuclear failed because it didn't live up to ridiculous hype?". No, nonsense. Nuclear has been a huge success.
- toss1 3y ago
  The price comment was not about "price is low"; it was about it becoming SO plentiful that the overhead in metering the cost would exceed the revenue and it could be just an on/off subscription This HAS happened with telecom services, where long-distance calls used to even be sometimes only one town over, and were charged by the minute. Toll-free (800)- numbers were a big deal. Now, the network is so successful and calls so numerous that it is literally too cheap to meter - you either subscribe or you don't. Per-call metering is only the case in some international calls. Nuclear electric power could have become this ubiquitous and successful, where the overhead of per-kilo-Watt metering outweighed the revenues. It would have merely had to scale up several more orders of magnitude. THIS was the prediction. Obviously, although nuclear did have some success this did not happen. The costs of commissioning, building, and decommissioning individual plants were just too high. We cannot conflate the actual modest success, producing barely 20% of power in the US in 1995[0], with the prediction of nuclear succeeding like telecomm. It did not happen. I think it could yet happen with some of the new small (neighborhood-scale), self-contained, inherently safe designs. But that is another prediction. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273208/nuclear-share-of-electricity-generation-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273208/nuclear-share-of-...
  - bdjsiqoocwk 3y ago
    I guess we differ in that you call generating 20% of the energy in the USA "not a success" lol
    - toss1 3y ago
      Yikes. I specifically said it was a success. But after 2/3 of a century, nuclear has clearly failed to attain the level of success of other technologies, and it's success has been capped. Moreover, nuclear is now on a clear and accelerating decline. The peak was 1995, producing 20.1% of US power, and it's now fallen from 19.7% to 18.2% in the last two years. I wish nuclear had enjoyed more success; it still may with new smaller-scale and inherently safe technologies. But the current cost profile and construction profile is so far out of line with the continually-rapidly-declining-costs of competing solar and wind technologies, that current nuclear is only falling further behind. To build a nuclear plant vs solar or wind requires far more capital, has a far longer permitting process and construction process before a return on capital can even begin, and a far more costly end-of-life phase (notice we're not even mentioning the usual highlights of nuclear waste disposal, containment, and nuclear material proliferation). Nuclear has simply become an unmanageable option. So, considering that it's success was limited, and is now in decline with no end in sight, how is it unfair to characterize it as "failing to make the grade"?
xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
The United States has failed at nuclear power. It's much more successful elsewhere.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  Where is nuclear energy too cheap to meter?
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    Measuring success this way is nonsensical. Is there anything that is too cheap to meter? Are other forms of energy also unsuccessful until they produce energy too cheap too meter? This isn't serious criteria. The argument is that this is a silly framing with which to judge success. I agree! I for one am extremely content consuming energy, more than half of which is nuclear, followed by hydro. It is very successful.
    - SiempreViernes 3y ago
      Measuring success by whether the proponents delivers on their promises seems entirely fair.
      - alephknoll 3y ago
        By that criteria, everything is a failure. After all, it's the job of the proponent to oversell you on things.
        SiempreViernes 3y ago
        What sort of life experiences have made you come to this conclusion? Has nobody ever told you "come on, it'll be fun" and proven to be right by subsequent events?